Talk:Fallout
First Wave of Speculation When I was looking at prices of other HT e-books, I came across this. The summary is rather interesting (with the obvious caveats about accuracy). TR (talk) 15:44, October 7, 2015 (UTC) :Well that's up early. :I wonder how Truman intends to go about with a decapitation strike. He already hit Moscow, and Stalin lived; hitting him anywhere else will be much harder. And anyway, a nuclear bomb makes a pretty poor assassin's weapon. So maybe he's going to try something a little more cloak-and-dagger? A small team of commandos, like the one that killed Bin Laden? A CIA (or were they still the OSS?) black operation? Trying to flip someone who's close to him? There are millions of Soviet citizens who have grievances that I'm sure they'd love to avenge, maybe the US recruited someone to infiltrate wherever Stalin's using as his capital? ::Truman reflected in BA that "more powerful" things than the a-bomb were being worked on, which I took as a reference to the H-bomb. In OTL, of course, Ivy Mike was in November, 1952, but I'm sort of expecting that the first US h-bomb in this TL may very well be on Kuibishev, taking out Stalin, and proving to the USSR that they aren't going to win that particular race, creating a psychological impact on the Russians comparable to the a-bomb's impact on the Japanese. :::Perhaps. But the fission bombs are already powerful enough to smash the most important targets the superpowers can strike out at. Likewise, the Japanese already knew that Allied fire-bombers could devastate a city, but demonstrating the ability to do so with a single bomb was a fundamentally new way of doing it, a whole order of magnitude beyond the previous state of the art. In terms of sheer destructive capability, fusion bombs push the state of the art much farther than fission bombs had, but I just don't see what would make them terrifying in a way that regular nuclear weapons aren't. It's the end of your city either way. I live in the NYC metro area, and when I contemplate the possibility of that metropolis vanishing in the blink of an eye, I don't find myself thinking "Well that would be bad, but if Hoboken went up too, that would be much, much worse." Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::Under normal circumstances, sure, but we're also talking about some years of combat with the death tolls that go with it. To suddenly have a weapon the USSR can't match anytime soon, that can do in NYC and Hoboken and everyone in it (or their Soviet equivalents in this case)...obviously, we'll know for sure in a couple of years. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I can certainly see where that would be cause for concern. But would it inspire the kind of visceral horror that causes armies to mutiny and pro-war governments to fall? I don't think so. But as you say, time will tell. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::That takes us away from the summary a bit, of course, and more into "broad predictions category", but I did want to spring-board from the assassin's weapon point. ::Back to the summary proper: yeah it does sound like some sort of cloak-and-dagger plot. Commando raid seems reasonable (and the CIA was form in 1949) but another thought I had would be a more level-headed/selfish member of the Soviet government making overtures to the US akin to Himmler's efforts. This time, there would be reasons for the US to make deals with the enemy. :::That would make for a thrilling scene either way, if only we had a POV who could provide it. I don't suppose Yasevich might somehow be recruited for the job? Not of leading the Russian shadow government, of course, but of getting into Kuibishev and pulling the trigger. ::::One other thing I noticed was the reference to Russian fascists fighting alongside Polish freedom fighters. I knew Russian fascists existed in the abstract, of course, but after doing some quick Googling, I discovered that the Russian Fascist Party (such as it was) was made up predominantly of emigres with czarist leanings, located largely in Manchukuo under the protection of the Japanese throughout much of the war, and they were ultimately rounded up in 1945. Moreover, I learned that another Russian Fascist, this guy actually lived in the US for most of his adult life. :::::I assumed that what was really meant was "totalitarian," and the copywriter was indulging in a rhetorical flourish at the expense of a precise vocabulary. ::::::I'd considered that possibility, but until the novel is actually released, I prefer to speculate about real and true Russian fascists, especially since they are teaming up Polish freedom fighters, and their mutual enemy would presumably be the Bolsheviks. TR (talk) 15:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :::::::Yeah, deliberately taking the less likely but more provocative option when it comes to the ambiguous language you see in these things is often interesting. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:59, October 11, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::Might it be that they are referring to the Vlasovites and the ROA / RONA, if any were left over?JudgeFisher (talk) 07:01, November 15, 2015 (UTC) :::::Since you bring up the emigres and their descendants, however, you remind me that I read about them recently in Ian Buruma's 1945. WWII was very much their last stand; you might have some Tsarist's son or grandson hanging on here and there, but as a political force to be reckoned with, they were finished. You might as well try to get Brits excited about the Jacobites today. :::::The Nazis put the Tsarists in command of auxiliary regiments of mostly Ukrainian volunteers known as "Cossacks;" they wore Cossack dress uniforms, drilled in Cossack cavalry tactics, and made use of various other Cossack traditions. VE Day found these "Cossacks" holed up in the remote Carinthian Valley in Austria. They expected the Soviets to find them and were prepared for an inevitable fight to the death, but the British got there first. The "Cossacks" happily laid down their arms and surrendered once the British commander, a Brigadier TP Scott, guaranteed that they would not be handed over to the Red Army. However, after they'd been disarmed and taken into custody, the Foreign Office countermanded Scott and ordered his men to load the POWs onto east-bound trains, knowing full well that they were dead men the second they crossed the border. Since the Cossacks had already surrendered their weapons, they were as helpless as cattle in a stockyard, and their desperate pleas were just heartbreaking. The enlisted soldiers who were forcing them onto the trains damn near mutinied. But in the end, the deed was done. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::::I remember that horror show. TR (talk) 15:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::Now, Yasevich isn't a fascist that we've seen, but he does seem a little czarist, and he certainly hates the USSR for causing the deaths of his parents. So, while I don't know that he will become the Cassius Madison of the Hot War per se, I can imagine him falling in with anti-Stalin elements, and there is a plausible US connection to Russian fascism that HT could employ, Stalin dying at Yasevich's hand seems plausible. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::It could happen. The biggest problem is, we know that the attack on Stalin has ties to the US; if the plan is to turn a Russian and infiltrate Stalin's stronghold, it would most likely be a CIA black op. And I just don't see what kind of presence the CIA can have in the region where we left Yasevich off. So he would have to move around to a place where he'd be more likely to encounter an American first. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::::If memory serves, the CIA didn't have much a presence anywhere at that point. So you're probably right. Still Yasevich is presumably in the USSR for a reason. TR (talk) 15:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :::::::We'd like to hope so, though it wouldn't be the first time HT ran out of ideas for a POV and just had him meander about. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:59, October 11, 2015 (UTC) :::Of course, even as I think of this, I'm remembering what an edge-of-my-seat thrill it was to watch NBF III try to bore Featherston to death with a lecture after waiting much, much too long for Potter to get back to him. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::Eh, I'll defend HT ever so slightly--it made for poor dramatic reading, but it was unfortunately quite realistic. A number of would-be coups died on the vine thanks to fairly mundane events (like key people being transferred around or whatever), particularly during war time. Admittedly, it would have been nice if HT had remembered he was the God of this little universe, and that he could have easily introduced more actual drama into it. ::::Yeah, that's enough defending. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Sure, but when you're writing fiction, there's a certain expectation that you'll produce drama, even if you have to employ a few low-probability plot devices to get there. The ease with which the Confederates won the atomic arms race is downright ridiculous; it's infinitely easier to believe that Potter would not get sent down to Georgia out of nowhere than it is that everything that had to happen to allow FitzBelmont to succeed would happen. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :Then the Soviets "have a gambit of their own." I don't know if they'd bother trying to grease Truman; they would have seen in 1945 that a change in wartime leadership is something the US government can take in its stride. I'm wondering if they'll try to steal some sort of technological innovation, but the US doesn't seem to have any huge advantages in that area. The fusion bomb should still be very much in its infancy in 1951, and the Soviet research into that area never lagged too far behind. Maybe some sort of terror campaign? Sleeper cells getting into the US and committing random acts of violence? A little early in the Cold War for that, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a deep cover operation like they run on The Americans or anything. ::Again, I had similar thoughts. Maybe not just in the US, but in NATO across the board. Aaron Finch's little Stalinist friend shows that even with a-bombs, there will be those who put their ideology above their country. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Sure, there are communists behind the lines who could be persuaded to cause mischief--and that might be what prompts the rest of the country to turn over power to McCarthy. In places like France and Italy (whose loyalties are apparently hanging in the balance already) that kind of intrigue can pay major diplomatic dividends. In the US it would just be a nuisance, albeit a deadly one--and if panic brings McCarthy to power, that throws all sorts of things into question. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :Truman hits Europe yet again in order to slow the Soviet advance. That must mean East Germany, maybe West if the situation is desperate enough for Adenauer to withdraw his earlier objection (or for the rest of NATO to stop caring about said objection; in HT's hands, no one ever seems all that respectful of Adenauer, and they acknowledge his sterling anti-Nazi credentials only reluctantly). ::Yeah it almost has to be East Germany. Probably repeated bombings of certain points. Maybe a few proto-Warsaw Pact capitals for good measure. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :I'm perplexed as to how Stalin can strike back with horrifying results. He's already hit Paris, it's hard to see how he could escalate things further in Western Europe; even if London's next, that would just be more of the same. Nor can I think of any other American-allied city elsewhere in the world that would qualify as an escalation beyond Paris; hitting Taipei would not be any more horrifying than that. And Bulls flying out of Warsaw Pact territory can't penetrate any deeper into US airspace than they already have. The East Coast could still be vulnerable to tricks like they pulled in the Panama and Suez Canals; surely this has occurred to people and everyone's on high alert, but you can only monitor international shipping so closely, especially into a port the size of New York. ::Yeah, I think the continental US is fine (more or less), so Stalin has to something really different. Indiscriminate bombings/terror attacks on populated areas with limited strategic value? Hitting every capital of NATO? It'd be pretty awful if Stalin suddenly hit Brussels and Amsterdam and Copenhagen and Lisbon etc, especially as they don't seem to be very active in the war as of yet, in addition to Rome and London. :::Again, once Paris went I'm sure all the other capitals realized the danger (whether they're able to do anything about it is another question). If you lived in one of those cities, losing your home would be horrifying in ways that appreciating the possibility of it would not; however, I got the impression from the way the copywriter wrote it that things would be escalated beyond where the last book had left off. :::Actually, now that I think of it . . . the Soviet forces have already done their worst, haven't they? They can continue doing more of the same, and it's not at all clear that NATO can hold out if they do, but--barring some way of delivering nuclear warheads to the huge American population centers on the Atlantic coast--they have no trump cards left to play, no way to escalate beyond what they're already doing. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::Now that you point it out, I tend to agree. Aside from bio/chemical weapons (see below), there isn't much more Stalin can do militarily that would worse than what's already been done. The only other thing I can think of that would count as "awful" at this point would be Stalin engaging in widespread massacres in areas under Red control, akin to the Katyn Forest massacre. Based on Luisa Hozzel's POV, so far, the Soviets haven't been vindictive in their rule, but that could change. But that's all I can think of. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Maybe they want West Germans to believe that becoming East Germans isn't such a bad bargain after all? You're right, they're being fairly well behaved. And if that were to change, they'd just be sowing the seeds of a guerrilla war. They know (even though they'd never dare admit) that Ukrainians and Belorussians would have been happy enough with life in the Axis if the German occupiers had showed an ounce of decency. When they first entered Germany late in WWII, they were hungry for revenge (and that hunger was whipped up to a fever pitch by official policy, coming straight from the top; they even put up billboards at the border saying "Soldier, you are in Germany; take revenge on the Hitlerites." A very different situation this time. I would think it would be No More Mr Nice Guy if the tide turns and NATO starts pushing them back. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :: Or maybe bio/chemical weapons? TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Yes, that would induce a new kind of horror. Objectively it would be more survivable than nuclear weapons, but it would demoralize NATO troops who remember their uncles coming home from the Argonne permanently blinded by mustard gas in ways that the specter of a nuclear bomb couldn't. :::And by the way, while I don't know what the two nuclear powers' stockpiles looked like in 1951 (and I suspect no casual Googling would enlighten me on something that must surely still be classified), they've both been throwing bombs around like they were a dime a dozen. And they're not. It took a lot of time, effort, and resources to build each one, I can't imagine they're easily replaced. Surely the main antagonists will have to start conserving them soon. And at that point, other weapons that can depopulate a large area quickly will become quite attractive. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::Don't ever dismiss Googling out of hand: nifty table here. :::::Well that's disturbing. Sixty years ago that information could have made you rich beyond your wildest imagination, or gotten you killed in the blink of an eye. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::Assuming this graph is accurate, the Soviets had 5 in 1950, 25 in 1951, and 50 in 1952, so they could build them in peace time, but not that quickly, whereas we had 369 in 1950, 640 in 1952, etc. :::::U-S-A! U-S-A! Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::Applying to BA, at least six in Europe, one in Alaska, six in the US (we're told LA got two) plus two that were intercepted. So that's at least 16 (could be more depending on the target). :::::Also Newfoundland, right? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::Then the Bordeaux and Paris bombs (which we learn were a pain in the ass to drop). I can't think of any USSR attacks between the US and the French attacks. :::::The Suez and Panama Canals. So twenty? Out of twenty-five? Damn, they're just about finished! Unless HT's taking a little poetic license to keep the dramatic potential alive Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Dammit, I knew I was forgetting some. Twenty bombs at least. The graph doesn't say how quickly they were able to build a bomb, nor whether or not they had their 25 at the beginning of 1951 or at the end. So we, and by extension HT, could plausibly spot them a comparative handful over the remainder of 1951. They aren't going to get anywhere near the 50 they had in 1952, though. In addition to issues we've outlined, there is a huge resource issue: according to this chart, the USSR was relying heavily on East Germany for its uranium going into 1951. Under the present circumstances, that would be heavily impacted. TR (talk) 15:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :::::::And surely they're holding a few in reserve to use against NATO armies that penetrate deep into Soviet territory, if it ever comes to that. The most attractive thing about having nuclear weapons is that, come what may, you simply _can not_ be overrun by a foreign army if you don't want to be. I'm willing to suspend disbelief here to a point, but if they use their bombs in Book 2 as liberally as they did in Book 1 and don't show any signs that they're running out, I'll have to call bullshit. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:59, October 11, 2015 (UTC) ::::Plus, we don't know what impact the loss of Moscow (or Kiev and Leningrad) might have had on the overall project. :::::Nothing good, I should think. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::So, yeah, I suspect the stockpile is looking small right now, and it's not clear whether or not they can replenish. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Ooh, then they'll be getting desperate soon. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :The ROK is teetering on the brink. Damn, MacArthur's idea on how to win that war really backfired, didn't it? And since we know what passes for good government in the regime that descends from Kim Il-Sung, that really is a dreary prospect indeed. (Though I have heard it posited that, had North Korea unified the peninsula in the 50s, Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-Il would eventually have had to liberalize, like Tito or Deng, or else would have been swept away by liberalizing forces, as their good buddy Ceausescu was.) ::Another "prediction of the future": I won't be surprised in the least if the status quo ante bellum is re-established in Korea when this is all done. It will be a huge tragedy for all the parties: all that bloodshed, and essentially all for nothing. Or, if the US does get the H-bomb first, and Stalin falls, then maybe the Chinese will start suggesting Mao had better quit while he's ahead, and he in turn tells Kim he's on his own. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Here's hoping. I've always wanted to read an AH that features Kim being strung from a lamppost. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::It would be nice, but I feel like a single Germany is more likely when all is said and done than a single Korea. It seems to be HT's focus. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Yeah, but it wouldn't hurt to throw in an "Oh by the way, Kim Il-Sung's finished too." Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::::"Syngmun Rhee exists" would also be nice. TR (talk) 15:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :::::::You know, it would be an exaggeration to say that contemporary Koreans needed to be reminded that Rhee existed, but not too much of one. He'd had some following in the heady days of 10s and early 20s, when things like the March 1 Movement and the assassination of Hirobumi brought Korean nationalism to a fever pitch; but by 1945, he'd been overseas so long that people had more or less forgotten about him. The closest comparison I can draw in recent American politics would be if the Democrats had nominated Mike Gravel in 2008; the most anyone would think, at first, would be "Oh, yeah, I think I sort of remember him." Still far more formidable than Kim, who had been a complete non-entity before Stalin put him in charge. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:59, October 11, 2015 (UTC) :France and Italy are "Europe's weak sisters," are they? Ouch. Though I can't really blame any NATO members who might find the notion of a separate peace attractive. Alliance with the US has reduced them to convenient proxies for revenge by the Soviet Union for actions that Washington took unilaterally, and since they were dragged into war, the US has proven pretty ineffective at defending them against the aggressor. ::Losing your capital, as France has, is pretty traumatic. I'm assuming the Fourth Republic is done. I suspect we'll see a civil conflict between de Gaulle (who is still in retirement in the country as far as we know) and the communists. Based on what we know about Italy, it looks like Stalin could declare an Italian People's Republic in northern Italy at this point. Same with Austria, come to think of it. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah. And if, as I posited above, Stalin has no further options for escalating his attacks beyond what he's already done, looking for alternative paths to victory becomes urgent. Unless of course he's too deluded to recognize the need, which is possible. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :Joe McCarthy rises to prominence? Interesting. I even find myself wondering if it's possible to connect those dots to the dots of the daring gambit of the Soviets' own. ::I'm horrified by McCarthy's possible rise. Sadly, post-war US is probably going to require a certain amount of benign and competent despotism from the White House while the country rebuilds and deal with whatever peace is imposed. McCarthy, in my opinion, is neither benign nor competent. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Oh yeah, it's a horrifying notion. Right up there with Trump's lead in the real-world polls. *shudder* Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :I initially thought Favyl Tabakman was going to become a POV, possibly displacing Marian Staley. But in the very next breath it turns out that Marian's still around, and I really hope HT wouldn't be so mad as to put two POVs into the same DP camp (again). Maybe whoever wrote that realized that we were more interested in Tabakman's story than in Marian's own. ::It does also say that Marian and Linda are "starting a new existence on their own". That could mean that Marian decides to try her luck elsewhere. Or not. :::Perhaps. Tabakman seems to be the toughest DP in the camp, I find it hard to imagine Marian saying she was striking out for greener pastures while Tabakman said "Oh, no, it's much safer in here." Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :: I guess my question would be: who is Fayvl replacing? TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah, and there's no way to know there. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :A savage Soviet fighter waging war by his own rules? No idea there. Shevchenko? He had experience with it when the Axis occupied Ukraine, but I saw nothing to suggest he was interested in doing that again; and since the Red Army is moving forward, I really don't see how he could even if he did want to. ::The description seems a better fit for 1) that German psycho in Hozzel's little half-assed unit, the devout Nazi and 2) the Hungarian sergeant. Obviously, neither are Soviets. Morozov, having had a tank blown out from under him, might become a bit of a monster over the course of things, but he doesn't seem to be that guy. Shevchenko has the same problems; he's not happy, but not exactly "savage" so far. TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::A suggestion (partially in jest) in favor of the German psycho: "savage Soviet fighter" doesn't mean a fighter who is a Soviet but one who fights Soviets. A sort of punny, misleading comment that might appear to a Turtledove blurb writer. ML4E (talk) 19:35, October 8, 2015 (UTC) ::::You know, that actually occurred to me earlier today. Perhaps. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::::You guys mean Rolf - that guy is a classic example of how hard this type of war would be to sell to a GI who might have been in Germany, lost someone to the Nazis or even witnessed a concentration camp liberation. I once had to interview a vet for a school project, and since that book Fox at the Rhine came out at the time, I threw in the question if he had to fight the Soviets alongside the Germans - it was anathema to him, esp. since he was Jewish. He didn't elaborate much but one wonders if there would be thoughts of mutiny a la WW I or not-so-friendly fire incidents with their former enemies cum new allies...JudgeFisher (talk) 07:01, November 15, 2015 (UTC) :And Daisy's falling in love with ol' what's-his-name. My, I never saw that one coming. (Actually when he stormed out of the bar in her penultimate scene and it looked like he wasn't coming back, I was thrown for a bit of a loop. Leaving Chekov's Penis unfired isn't like HT at all.) ::Maybe she'll be happy....TR (talk) 04:02, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :::I hope she is, she's a likable enough character. I wish she could find her happiness in a less cliche and predictable way, though. HT used to write female characters who didn't need men in their lives to feel complete, but not in a while. (Well poor old Sarah Goldman was never going to be happy under any circumstances, and I guess La Martellita qualifies in a . . . highly unorthodox way.) Turtle Fan (talk) 04:03, October 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::Peggy Druce and Diana McGraw outgrew their men. Peggy did start dating that new fellow at the end, but she seemed more of a fully-formed person seeking a partner at that point than a women who needed a man. And McGraw pretty obviously felt like her husband was dead weight at that point. TR (talk) 16:39, October 9, 2015 (UTC) :::::Yeah, but neither of them seemed at all liberated by it. It just made them more miserable. (And more boring, of course.) Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :Anyway. Nice having something to sink our teeth into already, while the details of the last book are still sorta semi-fresh in our minds. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:58, October 8, 2015 (UTC) :The title of the book is Fallout, which is fitting. I seem to recall on of the "Fallout" video games had a "Camp Turtledove" as a location. I wonder if HT will "repay" the favor with some easter egg or other?JudgeFisher (talk) 07:17, November 15, 2015 (UTC) Publishers Weekly Review Located here http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-39073-5. Not precisely glowing, or informative, but it is good to see our supposition about De Gaulle's return was correct. TR (talk) 00:44, March 4, 2016 (UTC) :That was as uninformative as it was unkind. We know de Gaulle's getting involved (who else could it be?) and that he's difficult to work with (imagine that!) Also, it seems the Soviets will put away the smiley face in East Germany--no surprise there either, though it would have been nice to see a different side of Stalin, especially if he's trying to flip NATO members. ::There was always the possibility the Jackal would get de Gaulle before he took office. ;) :::If he had, there really would not have been anyone with the standing even to try to keep France in NATO. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:41, March 5, 2016 (UTC) ::As to Luisa, at the risk of sounding like a sadist, I am more interested in her story now than I was when she was at home eating shitty canned food provided by the Soviets. TR (talk) 18:21, March 5, 2016 (UTC) :::I don't need to see yet another HT character living a life of misery and desparation. Of course I don't really need to see her in a boring limbo either. But I like the idea of Stalin trying to isolate the US diplomatically, and telling the world "Let us in and it's straight to the gulag with your civilians!" is an odd way to do that. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:41, March 5, 2016 (UTC) :I picked up on two typos in there, by the way: Hozzel is described as a WWI veteran, and BA is said to have come out in 2014. So we might call this review a somewhat half-assed job. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:17, March 4, 2016 (UTC) ::They also say that it's set in an alternate 1950. BA got into 1951 within the first 40 pages or so. TR (talk) 18:21, March 5, 2016 (UTC) :::Huh, I missed that one. What a mess. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:41, March 5, 2016 (UTC) Excerpt in BA paperback edition The excerpt in the PB edition of BA is now searchable at Amazon. Two scenes as usual. First is Truman's phone call from de Gaulle (which we knew was coming from the Publisher's Weekly review). De Gaulle is now a chairman of a Committee for National Restoration, and asks for aid. Truman reflects how much he does not like de Gaulle, but agrees since he's afraid de Gaulle might work out a separate deal with Stalin. The second scene is in Gribkov's POV, which appears to end on a grim note, though not for Gribkov. TR (talk) 16:57, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Excerpt at Penguin Random House now up. First 82 pages or so here. TR (talk) 17:29, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :They're giving away so much more than they used to. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:29, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::I think in the internet age, when they are racing against illegal downloads for everything, books included, the publishers are probably trying to incentivize us into waiting with legit previews, etc. TR (talk) 19:53, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :::Perhaps. I would have waited anyway; there may have been a time when I would have snapped up a bootleg TL-191 book (not that the technology existed back then, of course) but since then I'm just not in that great a hurry. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:50, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::I don't see a read an excerpt option on the given link.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:54, June 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::Click on "Look Inside" just below the cover image. ML4E (talk) 23:02, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Post-read discussion Ok, I've removed my previous spoiler, and will issue the spoiler warning here. I've finished, I know Jonathan has, but I don't know where anyone else is. But I kind of want to talk about it anyway. :I am about half way through a detailed read although I had skimmed cover to cover in a bookstore when it first came out. Spoilers are not a problem for me. ML4E (talk) 19:08, August 2, 2016 (UTC) So: The Macro HT's picked up the pace here. The novel starts in June 1951 and ends in May, 1952, so HT may b able to spend some time developing peace in Vol 3. Given the planned title, I'm inclined to think that HT is planning on doing just that. Structurally there's been a bit of backsliding in terms of the higher-ups. Aside from the one phone call from de Gaulle, Truman doesn't interact with any world leaders. Truman tells us about phone calls from other leaders, but HT doesn't depict them. He meets with Marshall, but not Acheson or any ambassadors. Truman doesn't have any family scenes, either (but given the presence of Marian Staley and Aaron Finch, your mileage may vary on that point.) That having been said, HT still does a reasonably good job of giving us the overall picture of things, even if certain obviously details are missing. Attlee is only referenced in the context of Potsdam; lack of info about the status of the British government is particularly noticeable given Daisy Baxter's status as a POV. No reference to Rhee or any other key members of the ROK govt, aside from a vague reference to the fact that a number of ROK officials collaborated with the Japanese. I think HT has admitted that the west is going to win in some way. As speculated above, the US does use atomics in West Germany. Just as it looks as if all of Germany is going to fall, and the Red Army is going to push into the Low Countries, the US does a pretty good job of annihilating most of the Red Army's forward lines. For the remainder of the novel, the Eastern Bloc in in retreat. Not a hasty one, but it's noticeable. Moreover, Slovakia proclaims its independence, and Soviet resources are deployed to give Bratislava the non-atomic Dresden treatment, although it doesn't appear that this completely squelches the rebellion. At the very end of the novel, Poland is also in rebellion. In the meantime, while HT has the USSR do some audacious shit with their atomic bombings, I think he's also very aware just how tiny their arsenal is. After the West German bombings, Gribkov gets to hit Antwerp, and that's it. Stalin also arranges for atomic attacks in Korea at Chongju and (I think) Hungnam, which helps FUBAR UN logistics even more. He also hits Sculthorpe (which effectively clobbers Fakenham, too). Finally, Stalin hits the East Coast in May 1952, using mid-air refueling (although he gets the idea from German milch cow submarines). Washington, New York and Boston go down. Philadelphia is spared through dumb luck. As my now-deleted posted hinted at, our guesses as to the election are now all moot. McCarthy is pretty much on his way to get the GOP nomination before this, but he and Taft are among the dead, as are most of the Dem front-runners (Truman having announced that he was not pursuing the nomination). Truman is in Buffalo when the attacks take place, so he's spared, but he loses Bess and Margaret. Most of the Supreme Court is also spared. When Truman is able to address the country, he references the fact that there aren't enough members of Congress for a quorum, implying some survivors, so HT has a built in escape hatch if he suddenly decides that, e.g., Nixon survived. The Micro On the micro-level: *Luisa Hozzel gets snapped up by the MGB when they realize who her husband is. She's in work camp for the duration of the novel. Life sucks for her. It'll suck more when she learns her husband, Gustav Hozzel has been killed by a Soviet shell and replaced by Rolf as POV. *Cade Curtis is getting ahead in the world by attrition--officers get dead, and he gets promoted. He remains the only US character in combat for the novel. In addition to this, he undergoes some personal growth, too, thanks to the help he got when behind enemy lines. When new companies of ROK troops are placed in the lines, he realizes that the COs learned way too much from the Japanese. He gets into a pissing match with a particularly brutal SK captain, and arranges for the transfer of one SK soldier to his company. The whole Korean theater continues be up in the air. Each side gains and loses momentum throughout. Given the course of things, I think Cade will wind up a somewhat bigger fish than when he began. *Marian Staley gets out the camp with Linda thanks to her husband's death benefits. She winds up in Weed, California (which I'm sure will appear as "Weed, Jefferson" in an unrelated work), a logging community where the logging companies have a firm strangle-hold on the tiny town. Marion starts quietly agitating for reforms, with the help of a local newspaper editor and Fayvl Tabakman, who follows her to Weed (guess why?). It presents a sort of irony here, as even in the midst of a nominal war with Communism, we see something akin to socialist-style reforms here. Like Cade, I see Marian becoming a bigger fish in a small pond. *Isztvan Szolovits finally gets captured after a near-miss with an atomic bomb. He beats the shit out of some unreformed Arrow Cross Party asshole, then draws the notice of the Americans. A Hungarian-American who is also a Jew talks to Isztvan about his ideology, etc., suggesting Slovakia and Poland aren't the only discontented Soviet allies. *Konstantin Morozov and his new crew also survive an abomb on the front lines, although they do wind up in hospital with varying degrees of radiation sickness for a time. Morozov gives us a good idea of how depleted the Soviets are getting, as he and his crew are initially transferred to a T-34 which has been dug out of storage. When that tank gets blown up out from beneath them, Morozov is able to get another T-54 while risking court martial. *Aaron Finch is where we get most of our political gossip. His family favors various flavors of Democrat (Humphrey, Kefauver, Stevenson, Harriman) and are terrified of McCarthy. Except for Stevenson, those debates are moot at the end of the novel. He also reveals to his racist colleague he's a Jew. *Boris Gribkov is another one who might just rise in the world, having killed a number of key cities. Leonid Tsederbaum kills himself after Paris, and Gribkov and his crew are initially under suspicion. Then they help bomb Bratislava, have to bail out, and Boris gets back to HQ through Hungary, then spends the rest of the novel practicing aerial refueling until he bombs Washington. His conscience seems to be eating at him at the very end, though. *Vasili Yasevich manages to settle into a new village at the ass-end of nowhere in East Russia, and spends a great deal of time trying to convince everyone he's grown up in the Soviet system. He makes peace with the local MGB guy, helps one of Luisa Hozzel's fellow prisoners escape, and is sort of in a precarious position at the end when the MGB guy says that either one of them could be drafted at any minute (again, more evidence that the Soviets are starting scrape the bottom of the barrel). *Ihor Shevchenko is sadly not on occupation duty in Italy or Austria, but is sent to the front lines. Again, he survives a-bombing. I think he might also become a bigger fish. He has no illusions about this whole situation. At one point, he even shoots a particularly devoted (i.e., complete asshole) Russian sergeant in combat. At the end, he's part of the group sent to put the Polish uprising down. Given his nationality and his worldview, I'm inclined to think he'll be switching sides or something before Vol 3 is over. *Daisy Baxter has the worst of it. As mentioned above, Sculthorpe gets fried, and Fakenham gets the fallout. She loses her bar and gets radiation sickness. Her relationship to Bruce McNulty picks up however. Naturally, just as she seems to be happy, the novel ends with her directly under a flaming piece of a Beagle that's been shot down by a British plane during an airraid. This could be a Pete McGill in the ocean situation. She's not definitively dead, but....the way HT writes it, and the reality that McNulty is now in the position to replace her, and that we really could use an allied bomber in Europe at this point fills me with dread. Predictions The Soviets will cry uncle in the long run. They are just getting clobbered on all levels, and their ability to retaliate is limited, hence big gamble atomic attacks spaced out over months rather than rapid fire ones. Their non-atomic resources are being eaten up, they are having to put down rebellions. Truman has a sit down with George Kennan, who does suggest that if Stalin dies, the war will probably be over. I stand by my prediction that the H-bomb will also be the key here. We are now on just the right timetable to allow that to be deployed and have it count from the narrative perspective. I also think that victory will be Stalin's death, a collapse of the USSR, and a massive withdrawal from Europe akin to post-WWI. With the USSR gone, Mao will be standing with his dick out in Korea, and we'll see essentially the status quo there as a result. For his new cabinet, emergency govt, whatever, I foresee Truman running around grabbing former FDR officials, random governors who aren't dead, etc. James Byrnes is still perfectly safe in SC, for example. I also won't be surprised to see a few political careers get an early start, for example, the governor of Arizona decides to appoint his good friend Barry Goldwater to the House, that sort of thing. It also occurs to me that "Storm or something like that" was also safely out of office in 1952, so, yeah, he could fill the void left by McCarthy. The 1952 POTUS election will likely be Eisenhower and Stevenson, simply because they are pretty much the only viable candidates left. In OTL, the most viable candidates were Congress critters, and that's how it was shaping up here as well. While I said above that HT built in an escape hatch if he decided to let somebody live, I think we'll see known quantities in an uncertain world. Ike fits that for sure, and I don't see anyone else the Dems could field but Stevenson. Elsewhere, once the war is over, we'll see some early scenes of clean-up. The Polish government-in-exile will probably depart for what's left of Poland, Adenauer will find himself running all of Germany, Slovakia will gain recognition, de Gaulle will start an early 5th Republic, HT will suddenly remember he should do something with the British government, etc. TR (talk) 18:22, July 31, 2016 (UTC) Reaction I haven't gotten to it yet, and it may be a while. I've read HT's Del Rey offering as soon as it's become available (more or less) every year since 1999, and I'm looking forward to this more than I ever did to many of them, but life's been kind of chaotic this year. I'll get to it eventually, and in the mean time I don't mind being spoiled. I'm glad that the USSR is using its nukes sparingly. The decision not to nuke the Slovak rebels in particular suggests that HT is really taking the Soviet limitations into account; I was afraid he'd just ignore it and have them drop as many as his story needs required. I can't help remembering that, when he put Germany in the same situation in the Race-German War of 1965, he did have them expend a nuke to bring Romania to heel. Sucks that Stalin got the East Coast cities; they are my favorite, of course, and given how different the population dispersal was in the 1950 census, that would be a devastating blow in ways that losing the West Coast ones wasn't. A world war is played for keeps, I guess. Do you think that's Stalin's big game-changing move that they'd talked about? And what about the attempted US game-changer? That sounded like a black op of some sort, but nothing you've mentioned would qualify. :The East Coast attacks are certainly the game changer. At this point only Truman, seven SCOTUS justices, and some tiny number of Congresspersons (less than a quorum, Truman says) remain of the Federal government. The reference to the US version is probably the consequence of some editor making quick suggestions to a copy editor about the attack on Moscow in BA which is reference several times here, and Truman's meeting with Kennan, where they discuss whether or not Stalin's death might end the war. We are not privy to any sort of black ops at this time, and no reason to think there will by any of that. On second though, given Truman's state of mind at the end of the book, I'm sure much of Russia will be glass, US special forces will make their way into Russia, and all manner of back channels to anti-Stalinists, soldiers of fortune, and the like will be opened. TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::It looks like the quorum thing might be a bit of a snafu. The House has rules in place that automatically reduce a quorum when seats are vacated by death or resignation. So if 217 members survived the bombing, a quorum is 109. Not sure whether the Senate has the same rule in place, and a quick Google isn't helping; but it does reveal that the Senate president can just assume a quorum is present provided no senator asks him or her to make a roll call. So they can technically still function, but anyone desiring to obstruct their business can possibly bring things to a grinding halt. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :::That leads to an interesting angle: Truman makes his quorum comment, reminds everyone governors can appoint Reps, but Senators need to be elected, and that will take time the country really doesn't have. In the meantime, Chief Justice Vinson has given Truman more or less carte blanche in the emergency situationm to do what needs to be done. HT might leave this version of the USA more authoritarian than when he found it. TR (talk) 22:35, August 2, 2016 (UTC) I notice though that Canadian targets once again got a pass; that could be because as the Soviets run low they need to become much more selective about their targets (I see they also skipped some only slightly less valuable American targets, like Baltimore and Atlanta) but it does have me wondering if that has any bearing on efforts to flip other NATO members and leave the US isolated. :Not at this point, no. TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) The USSR can't win a nuclear exchange, and that means they can't win a conventional war either, because American nukes will be used to prevent them from claiming a decisive battlefield victory if nothing less can; I see that happened in Germany. We were promised that France and Italy were teetering or something, did anything come of that? :Not a hell of a lot at the moment. Once Truman gave de Gaulle everything he asked for, de Gaulle's interim government was more than willing to fight the Soviets, and evidently are more aggressive than the Fourth Republic. Italy only rates a quick bit of hand-wringing from Marshall, who notes that Italy had more Reds than even France. While the USSR occupies Northern Italy, including the Po Valley, they don't push further south. That remains the implicit status quo for the remainder of the book. TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::Hmm. Yeah, Stalin's doomed, then. Also, yet again we've been burned by an over-promising Del Rey precis. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, August 1, 2016 (UTC) Frustrating, though, that Truman had so little contact with his allies. How does Atlee get only a tiny incidental mention? And since he does, I assume the status of the British nuclear program is still a question mark? :Oh, no idea as to the British nuclear program. No complaints about Parliament or Attlee facing confidence votes, etc. I also double checked when I'd finished, and George VI died in February, 1952, so realistically, he's already dead, but that hasn't been addressed. Really underdeveloped stuff. Daisy was having a hell of a time, but you'd think listening to the radio in her hospital bed recovering from radiation sickness would be a good vehicle for such things. TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::Geez, I'm so glad it's a world war. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :::As I recall, her hospital tent didn't have a radio. It was set up in a meadow so no power for it. But you're right, its very frustrating. ML4E (talk) 19:08, August 2, 2016 (UTC) ::::Well, not the radio then. Runners coming in with news would have done it. And she does start living in room later and would presumably have read the papers now and again. I am starting to believe that, aside from Winston Churchill, HT doesn't think much of the British government. In WW, we got some good Churchill scenes, but Col saw it going pro-Nazi, and we didn't even know Eden was PM until Aftershocks, and by HB, the country had lagged way behind. In 191, it appeared to be the least awful of the Entente during GWII, but that's a low bar, and we knew nothing about the government between the prologue of AF and TVO. And Churchill still came off as rather impressive. Then there was the TWPE coup which went nowhere, and now we have what's going on here. I thought for sure this would be a great opportunity for some scenes of Churchill jabbing a metaphorical poker up Attlee's ass, but nope. We don't even get a remark about a fairly prominent (albeit ceremonial) head of state in George VI dying (on schedule or even sooner). TR (talk) 22:35, August 2, 2016 (UTC) Glad to hear that Marian's found something useful to do. Showing how life on the home front goes on is an ideal use of a civilian POV, especially compared with . . . whatever it was that Peggy Druce spent most of her time doing (or not doing) after she got home. On the other end of the scale, how awful that HT promoted Luisa just to make her miserable. Sorry to hear about Daisy, too; she was really growing on me. Building up a tense, multi-cornered presidential campaign and then saying "Wait, never mind, they're all dead" sounds like a bit of a cocktease to me, and I'm sorry to hear that McCarthy got preempted; a desperate down-to-the-wire effort to keep him out of power would have been very interesting, and would have given all those American civilians something to fret over. What makes for good reading may make for horrible living, but the inverse is true as well. (And besides, misery loves company.) Turtle Fan (talk) 01:55, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :That's definitely a subjective issue. I was so shocked by HT by the attack that I didn't really notice the tease of it all. My first reaction was more "I didn't want McCarthy to be POTUS, but not like this. NOT LIKE THIS!" (And I felt extra bad for Robert Taft--seriously HT needs to just write a story about Taft as POTUS, finally once and for all. And a substantive one, not one where he wins in '52 and dies of cancer the next year, but one where he can serve at least one four year tmer. I don't have any affinity for Taft, it just feels as if HT somehow owes the guy at this point.) TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::The shock value may have hit me like that if I'd read it "live." Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, August 1, 2016 (UTC) Side Note By the way, in one of those funny little coincidences, just yesterday morning I quite unexpectedly found myself in White Sulphur Springs, WV. They have this great big golf resort there, built on a site that used to be where the jet set of the Antebellum South took the waters in the summertime if they were fashionable enough. Some local land developer bought the place for a song during the '09 recession, but for most of the 20th century it was owned by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. The C&O had a number of government contracts back in the day, and in 1958 one of those contracts included a $14 million bonus with no explanation. Later that year they began work on a new wing of the resort, which opened in 1962. It was more hotel rooms as well as lots of spaces for conventions and the like. What very few people knew was that the convention halls were full of false walls and trap doors and shit, and that they concealed all sorts of hospital beds, stockpiles of non-perishable food, emergency generators, weapons, communications equipment, decontamination chambers, riot gear, and a series of barracks that could accommodate 1100 people in minimal comfort. There were also blast doors and such that were hidden in plain sight in places open to the public. In 1992 an investigative journalist exposed all this in a piece for the Washington Post, and the government said "Yup, it's true; that was the fallback meeting location for Congress if the Soviets had bombed us and we'd had to evacuate Washington." (They were so forthcoming, and so unbothered by the fact that the paper had published this, that it's widely believed the government deliberately leaked the story.) White Sulphur Springs is 240 miles from Washington as the crow flies--close enough to get to quickly, yet far enough away to be out of the line of fire--and it was thought that all those meandering mountain passes would break up a lot of the fallout, since radioactivity generally favors movement in straight lines. Ten years too late to help the Congress in this story, but an interesting side note even so. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:55, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :That is quite cool. TR (talk) 18:52, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::The best part is, a lot of the stuff was open to the public the whole time. The infirmary was where the house doctors worked on hotel guests who needed their services. They used the cafeteria to train kitchen staff. Even the House and Senate chambers themselves were available for lease, though you wouldn't know that's what they'd been built for. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :::I thought it rang a bell, WW: White Sulphur Springs. ML4E (talk) 19:01, August 2, 2016 (UTC) ::::Oh yeah! ::::I remember Larssen staying in a hotel while he was there, specifically that he witnessed an argument between Molotov and, I believe, the German ambassador in the dining room during breakfast. It may well have been the same hotel--especially since the tour guide mentioned that Axis diplomats were interned there after Pearl Harbor till the US government could arrange their repatriation. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:11, August 2, 2016 (UTC)